The chance to hear Nobel prize-winner Paul Nurse speak (at the Ernst Chain Memorial Lecture, Imperial College) was too good to miss. When I asked people what Sir Paul was talking about, nobody I asked seemed to know, and perhaps that sums up the evening: although the lecture hall was full, and public praise before and after the talk were gushing, the event was more about the presence of Paul Nurse than anything he said.
His talk, entitled “Science as Revolution”, was a very rapid primer on some aspects of the history of science – only some aspects, since, as one questioner pointed out, it omitted Chinese, Arabic, and Indian contributions to that narrative. The thesis was that “Science is the longest-lasting agent of revolution in world history“, because science, uniquely, is dedicated to discovering the truth. The presentation began with a brief mention of Popper and falsification.
Such a view of science is hardly very original, or enlightening. The only interesting parts of the talk were the occasional asides that Nurse added, although these were maddeningly not followed up. I got the idea that the speaker was reading from a script that had been given several times. For example, “good science is analogous to good democracy” – an interesting statement that needs more than just a simple assertion. The revelation that Jacques-Louis David painted a portrait of Lavoisier and then voted for the chemist’s execution raised a murmur in the audience, but I (for one) would have liked to know more.
Nurse quoted the last sentence of Darwin’s The Origin of Species:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.
And then commented that Darwin’s sentence that wouldn’t be accepted in any academic submission today. He could have discussed in more detail why the format of academic writing has changed in the last 150 years, for better or worse, but he did not.
Similarly, he raised expectations with an offhand reference to present-day life science. Just as quantum physics fails to correspond with common sense, he suggested that perhaps the same is true in recent life science, and then added, cryptically “I don’t know what I mean by that sentence, but I think it might be true.” Where common sense departs from understanding in life science would make a great lecture, but not, unfortunately, the one given here.
The lecture ended with a statement of the importance of “respect for quality science”, and that “we need to push back” on social media that presents false views – yet there was no indication of how exactly we might effect this.
All in all, a disappointing evening. I’m sure there are many subjects that Paul Nurse could talk about in fascinating detail, but a general history of science was not the best use of his skills.
Leave a Reply